<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Christoph Derndorfer <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> Briefly looking through your analysis and the lists I agree on most counts. The one area where I'd probably be more lenient than you is allowing local-/country-lists which are half-decently active to exist separately and not be merged into grassroots@ or olpc-sur@ (examples here are most of the South American country lists). </blockquote><div> Just to be clear, my suggestions to merge some of the country-specific lists was not based on a judgement that they did not "deserve" their own list. Rather, it was based on the notion that they share similar challenges (especially those in start-up mode) and they would benefit from "hanging out" on a list where others were facing similar issues. Peru and Uruguay efforts have matured to the point where they are facing unique challenges in their deployments and coordinating efforts that they don't want to "bother" others with, and so I did not recommend merging them. We have over 100 languages/dialects represented on the Pootle server and we handle all communication via the single Localization list. This provides great benefit where a Japanese localizer will answer a question posed by a localizer of an African language and vice versa. </div></div> That said, I posted my recommendations as a strawman to move the discussion forward to more specifics and do not feel I have the right to make any merge/drop calls on behalf of the lists involved. I firmly believe their feedback must be solicited before any action is taken, but my calls were based on the idea of doing something "for" them, not "to" them. The delicate balance is where joining a more general list would be discouraging because of the volume of non-specific discussion versus having a specific list that doesn't quite reach critical mass of activity.. It is not an easy determination to make. cjl